One of the hallmarks of the Quburis is their ignorance of Islamic terminology related to Tawhid. You will often see them mixing up the terms such as bid’ah, shirk, khurafah, zandaqah, etc. You will often find them saying things like, ‘Vahhabis say visiting graves is shirk …’, or ‘Vahhabis say tabarruk is shirk’.

In their ignorance, they don’t understand that for example visiting graves (for men) is actually a Sunnah. However, the actions of the Quburis (at the graves/tombs/shrines) usually fall under the category of either haram and bid’ah  or blatant shirk and kufr. The act itself i.e. visiting graves (in accordance with Islamic guidelines and rules) is in and of itself permissible and even recommended.

The Licking/kissing, etc. of graves, for example, is a known hideous Rafidi ritual, however, it is not shirk, nor is it shirk to seek blessings (tabarruk) from your favourite imam, ‘ayatollah’,  ‘pir’ or grave/tomb/shrine. However, all of those actions are reprehensible innovations and heresies that are not sanctified in Islam and not taught by our Prophet (ﷺ), his Ahlul-Bayt, and Sahabah.

Tabarruk (seeking blessing) was indeed practiced by the Sahabah and Ahlus-Sunnah has ever denied that. However, it is not permissible to seek blessing from anyone other than the Prophet (ﷺ), this is the strongest opinion and based on the practice of the Sahabah.

Tabarruk applies only to the Prophet (ﷺ), because of the goodness and blessing that Allah has put in his body and whatever he touches. The Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them) did not seek blessing from anyone after the Prophet’s (ﷺ) demise, neither from Abu Bakr nor from ‘Umar nor from ‘Uthman nor from ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them), despite them being the greatest amongst them.

It is thus not permissible to draw an analogy (qiyas) with anyone else. Seeking barakah from anyone else amongst the righteous is a reprehensible innovation (bid‘ah) and it is a means that leads to shirk. There is a reason why you will never find Sunni-Athari scholars being excessively revered by their scholars where their followers drink their saliva, prostrate to them, kiss their sandals and shoes, etc. All these khurafat are the trademarks of the Quburis like the Rafidah and extremist Sufis.

In short: Tabarruk is restricted to the Prophet (which includes his authentically established relics) and the heretics have included that to their obnoxious ‘pir’ and ‘ayatullah’ clerics (charlatans).

An appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) by the Quburiyyah (Quburis/grave worshippers)

Birds of a feather flock together, so it is not surprising that the deceptive Rafidah and their brothers in Quburism i.e. the extremist Sufis (like the Barelvis) often repeat the same misleading lie and spurious arguments.

One of these shubuhat is a report about the funeral of Shaykh al-Islam Taymiyyah which they circulate in their ignorance in order to portray Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers as hypocrites and at the same time to justify their own bizarre, foolish, excessive, and heretical rituals at their beloved graves/tombs/shrines that they are attached to like Muslims are attached to the masjid and Tawhid.

The Quburis ply the emotions of their gullible followers with historical accounts that neither disprove their opponents nor justify their own heretical practices and rituals. They basically argue that a Salafi authority (Ibn Kathir) confessed that Ibn Taymiyyah’s students (!) were involved in the excessive veneration of the grave and corpse of Ibn Taymiyyah, which in turn renders ‘Wahhabis’ as hypocrites who object to similar practices done by Sufis (and the Rafidah).

The following report is scattered online and constantly repeated and rehashed by the grave-worshippers who don’t even realise how foolish they look by citing such ‘proofs’ (spoofs). The following quote is what most of them (who know zero Arabic) parrot and c/p:

Ibn Kathir Dimishqi – one of Ibn Taymiyyah’s foremost students – records how the Muslims accompanying Ibn Taymiyyah’s funeral took the water left over from his funeral bath as Tabarruk. Ref: Al-Bedaayah wan Nehaayah vol. 5 p. 326

And here the original Arabic version of Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah:

  

And here an excerpt:

وحضر جمع كثير إلى القلعة ، وأذن لَهُمْ فِي الدُّخُولِ عَلَيْهِ ، وَجَلَسَ جَمَاعَةٌ عِنْدَهُ قبل الغسل، وقرأوا القرآن، وتبركوا برؤيته وتقبيله، ثم انصرفوا، ثم حضر جماعة من النساء ففعلن مثل ذلك، ثم انصرفن، واقتصروا على من يغسله). البداية والنهاية (14 / 156). .

‘A large number of people came to the fortress (in which Ibn Tayimiyyah was imprisoned) and they were permitted to enter upon (Ibn Taymiyyah’s room). A group was sitting next to him before his ghusl (of Janazah) and were reading Qur’an and they sought blessings by looking at him and kissing him, then they left. Then a group of women entered and they did the same, then they left …’

And none of the above has been ever hidden by Ahlus-Sunnah wa al-Athar. Ibn Kathir mentions many more blameworthy and haram acts (by the men and womenfolk) at Ibn Taymiyyah’s funeral (if anything it proves his truthfulness and integrity) such as:

• The ignorant masses started drinking the water used for bathing his corpse.
• Men and women (!) kissed him
• People wailed and lamented (like Rafidah) at his funeral
• People sought blessings from his sandals and turban!

Ghuluw upon ghuluw that Ibn Taymiyyah warned and fought against his whole life. He spent a lifetime objecting to tomb veneration but the Sufi-Rafidi-influenced masses did what they did and none but they themselves are to be blamed just like the Quburis of today are to be blamed for their mainstream heretical rituals.

Needless to mentions that the real followers of Ibn Taymiyyah have never indulged in such deviant practices, in fact, even their enemies acknowledge that they (‘Wahhabis’) oppose such extreme and excessive pagan-like rituals.

The Quburis should prove that a single of Ibn Taymiyyah’s actual student committed any of the blameworthy Rafidi-Sufi-like superstitions at his funeral. Here a list of his students, prove to us that any of them was part of the masses that Ibn Kathir mentions:

• Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah,  Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr
• adh-Dhahabi, Muhammad Ibn Ahmad
• al-Mizzi, Yusuf Ibn Abdur-Rahman
• Ibn Kathir, Isma’eel Ibn Umar
• Ibn Abdul-Hadi, Muhammad Ibn Ahmad
• Al-Bazzar, Umar Ibn Ali
• Ibn Qadi al-Jabal, Ahmad Ibn Husain
• Ibn Fadlillah al-Amri, Ahmad Ibn Yahya
• Muhammad Ibn al-Manj, Ibn Uthman at-Tanukhi
• Yusuf Ibn Abdu-l-Mahmud Ibn Abdus-Salam al-Batti
• Ibn al-Wardi, Zayn ad-Din Umar
• Umar al-harrani, Zayn-ad-Din Abu Hafs
• Ibn Muflih, Shams ad-Din Abu Abdullah

Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani said: If there were no virtues of Shaykh Taqi ad-Deen except for his famous student Shaykh Shams ad-Deen ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, writer of many works, from which both his opponents and supporters benefited from then this would be a sufficient indication of his (ibn Taymiyyah’s) great position.

Neither Ibn Taymiyyah nor his students nor those who honour (not venerate) them are to be blamed for what the ignorant laity did at his funeral. The truth is that to this very day, the Salafis, Ahlus-Sunnah wa al-Athar, are known for their fierce opposition towards the veneration of saints and graves. Their own graves are known to be modest and Islamic and their funerals are usually (especially in lands where the call of Tawhid is prevalent) void of all the bid’ah and khurafat that the Quburis such as the Rafidah and extremist Sufis are known for to this very day.

Moreover, what are the records of Ibn Kathir supposed to prove? The masses of the Muslims loved Ibn Taymiyyah and the masses were ignorant and lived in a city where such practices were common (as it is common with Sufis today).

Historical accounts also mention that due to favourable policies towards the Shia by the authorities, the then  Ilkhanid ruler Öljaitü, brother of Ghazan Khan, Shi’ism had influenced the Sunni masses in Damascus and surrounding.

Ibn Kathir doesn’t specify who these masses were. Ibn Taymiyyah fell ill in early September 1328 and died at the age of 65, on 26 September of that year, whilst in prison at the Citadel of Damascus. When people heard of his news they flocked to the citadel. They were laypeople, ‘awam, i.e. not a hujjah (evidence) against anybody, especially not against Ibn Taymiyyah, the man who was known for being fierces against the Quburis (Rafidah and extremist Sufis) and their folklore rituals, a man who condemned the cult of saints that to this very day are the cornerstone of Shi’ism and Sufism.

Ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned many times by the authorities (simply for expressing his views), one time because he condemned popular Sufi practices and the influence of the zindiq Ibn Arabi (d. 1240), earning him the enmity of leading Sufi shaykhs in Egypt and a prison sentence. His outspokenness and nonconformity to Sufi ideals and practices continued to draw the wrath of the religious and political authorities in Syria and Egypt. This man spoke his mind until he met death in prison.

The grave worshippers don’t even understand that Ibn Taymiyyah would be the first to condemn the actions that were committed at his funeral.

The big difference between Ahlus-Sunnah and Ahlul-Bid’ah and the Zanadiqah is that the latter encourage such acts i.e. it is not just done by ignorant laypeople but by their scholars (‘ayatollahs’ and ‘pirs’) who are the very cause of heresies and reprehensible rituals around the graves in the land of the Rafidah and extremist Sufis.

Conclusion:

The student of Ibn Taymiyyah, the Athari giant Ibn Kathir merely mentioned what the Muslims i.e. the ‘awam (laity) committed at the funeral of Ibn Taymiyyah. Even if a scholar (Bazar al-Hanbali mentions that some scholars were present without specifying them i.e. their ‘aqidah and manhaj) participated in those haram and bid’ah acts at Ibn Tayimiyyah’s funeral, that would still prove nothing other than the mistake and sin of that individual(s). None of them are infallible authorities so appealing to them as if they represent the truth of and Ibn Taymiyyah’s aqidah is a logical fallacy of the textbook kind.

Both Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir are known for their that reject such reprehensible practices, so neither Ibn Taymiyyah can be blamed for what people did after his demise nor can Ibn Kathir be blamed for narrating what he saw.

Many pious scholars have been inflicted by their pseudo-followers. The Imams of Ahlul-Bayt were inflicted by the Rafidah, the ascetic Imams like Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani, the Persian Hanbali, were afflicted by the extremist Sufis who have turned him into a demigod, Imam Bukhari who narrated the prohibition of erecting structures above graves was inflicted by his pseudo-followers who built a mausoleum above his grave, and the examples are many and it should be clear that all of them are free of the falsehood attributed to them.